DM's Reasonable Limits?

[Amphetryon]

I've seen several threads on a couple of different D&D boards addressing how much input and control a DM should have over the world, the PCs, and their interactions within specific frameworks. I thought it might be worthwhile to collect some opinions from the forum-goers about the larger issues at play here, and see if there's a correlation to how the larger issues are viewed versus how the specific situations "should" be handled. As always, there are no wrong answers here; I just ask that you can reasonably explain the rationale of your viewpoint if questions about it come up.

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

[Username_too_lo]

At the end of the day, DMing and playing are part of the same collaborative pastime. You shouldn't 'block' anyone's concept if it fits the game and gameworld, but should make them aware of the consequences of playing that character type. DMs should determine tech levels - for instance, I'm willing to bet that if one gun-wielding muggle managed to get into Voldemort's face, he'd be hamburger before he could get off one Avada Kedavra, so no guns in HP world.

1. Does the existence of shifters materially change your plots? What would be the consequences of allowing the existence of ****fers into your game? What are your reasons for not wanting him to play that type?

2. Sounds like a good example of players and DMs working together. Does the player just not want to shove class features into 'magic horse?' There's a horseless variant in PHB2. Put out a trail of cookies - these people are respected, these people have soft feather beds in every town while those people sleep on floorboards - again, what does it do to your game if he DOES play a Crusader type? Do you know, but just don't want to spoil the surprise?

3. No-one should EVER take Toughness. Telling him not to take it is like warning a drunk friend that the girl he's chatting up has a well-muscled mentally unstable girlfriend. Friends don't let Friends take useless feats.

4. That's a lot of multi-classing. By my reckoning, with xp penalties he should be about five levels below the other characters in his party - plus, his paperwork should be a bitch. Again, dangle the carrot of what class features he's missing out on by splitting himself.

Adventure & Interact

1. Is this a matter of not wanting to come up with something, or not wanting to waste their time? Kings are busy people, and receive many visitors. Give them a key - "I'll need something more than that in order to disturb his majesty's Chamberlain." Most importantly, rack up the red tape to stop diplomancers.

2. You spend a lovely day killing goblins. You get 30 coppers and no xp.

3. Let them go fight the minotaur. Of course, when they return they'll find more murders have taken place - the players being curiously absent, one of their number may even be set up to take the fall.

[Boci]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

Personally no. There is nothing inherantly FG about the shifter.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more?

Depends on the group. Certainly offering crusader or cleric as another option is harmless. No need to insist.


Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Can of worms. Sort answer, depends on why the DM doesn't think the crusader fits the holy warrior concept.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

Same as before. Offer, don't insist.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Personally as long as its been adressed in game via background story an insight to the character's mind I'd have no problem with this.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Yes.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

I think "You find a nest and slaughter it. A lucky hit deals 5 damage to Bob, but otherwise nothing major happens. You net yourselves 500gp and another 200 as a reward from some graful town folk" would be better.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first?

Either way. I'm perfectly happy to toss aside a page of campaign notes because their players change their minds, but I can understand if other DMs don't like this.


Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage?

Sounds reasonable.


Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

No. This could very easily be the end of the campaign. Its bad form. Solve an OOC problem OOC.


4. That's a lot of multi-classing. By my reckoning, with xp penalties he should be about five levels below the other characters in his party

Nope. PrC do not count for multiclassing penalties. He's only taking 1 for having two more level of barbarian than ranger. He could have that build with none if he went 2/2 for the base classes.

[Circle of Life]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

If it is clearly defined from the start that there is no crossover of races from other supplements, yes. It does seem odd that there could be werewolves but not shifters, but it's within the DM's right to restrict races in this game.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more?

Insist? Absolutely not. Suggest, especially if the player isn't intending to optimize his Paladin so that he can contribute properly? Sure.


Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

No, because class fluff should be entirely mutable. If I wanted to call my Lawful Good Warblade a holy paladin (note the lack of the capital P) of Heironeous who has made it his life's mission to seek out and end injustice wherever it may lie, I should damn well be able to.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness?

The DM should make it clear that it's a houserule with regards to toughness, in that it acts like normal Toughness up until 4th level, at which point it becomes Improved Toughness.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

No. An amalgamation of classes is often used to better represent your specific character concept. The DM should not restrict convoluted builds (provided they otherwise follow the rules of the world) unless it is a clear attempt at grabbing power, in which case it is within his rights to keep the general power level of the group on even footing.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Absolutely. In any believable society, the High Grand Poobah (sub in whichever title is appropriate for the leader of said society) is not going to have the time or inclination to meet with every jumped-up adventurer who thinks they're hot stuff because they killed a few kobolds. Rulers have advisors, who have attendants, who have errand boys to serve as messengers or eyes and ears. Depending on the importance of the PCs at a given time, they can meet with anyone in a long line of people whose report will, one way or another, eventually find its way to the High Grand Poobah's ears if it's important enough.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Not as such. Ideally, the DM can work a more level-appropriate plot hook into the slaughter of the goblins somewhere.

---

Sadly all I had time to answer. I'd have liked to have been able to provide more detailed answers on why certain things are or are not appropriate in my opinion, but the clock conspires against me today.

[Hazzardevil]

I've seen several threads on a couple of different D&D boards addressing how much input and control a DM should have over the world, the PCs, and their interactions within specific frameworks. I thought it might be worthwhile to collect some opinions from the forum-goers about the larger issues at play here, and see if there's a correlation to how the larger issues are viewed versus how the specific situations "should" be handled. As always, there are no wrong answers here; I just ask that you can reasonably explain the rationale of your viewpoint if questions about it come up.

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?
I'd say your within your rights to do it, although I wouldn't unless it created problems with the plot.

2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?
I'd reccomend them to try Crusader, although if they don't want to I would help them optimise or find a homebrew fix for it, I reccomend T.G Oskar's.

3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?
I'd let them if they wanted although tell them the diference and explain to them how one is better than the other.

4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?
I'd say no, although I wouldn't have any problem with it, If they took a level in each of those and others, I dislike lots of 1 level dips.

On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:
Let them go wherever they want, but warn them that you hadn't planned for them to do it.
1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?
I'd tell them they'd have to do something important for the king to take interest, or tell them they'd have to go through hell's paperwork.
2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?
I'd run them through one or two encounters that mix goblins and higher level creatures saying that they're working together.

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?
I'd tell them that was odd and that there would be consequences.

Comments Bolded.

[Vladislav]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game? It's your world. If you feel such a character can't exist in your world, you have the right to veto it. However, as a previous poster mentioned, you can also be a bit more open. If there's no harm ...


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?Advice, yes, insist, no.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?I'm sure that once you explain to them what Improved Toughness does, no one will actually think of taking Toughness. If they do, they are a lost cause.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?Yes, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. I mean, does it really hurt your game in any way?


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?Of course. Except it's not the DM saying it out of game, it's the guard at the gate in game.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?Not at all. He can subtly hint, but if they choose to go to the Goblin Woods, he should roll with it.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? DM? No. But some NPCs are going to be pissed off for sure that they left the quest like that.


Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?Horrible idea.

[Derjuin]

My thoughts:



1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?


It seems reasonable to me that a DM would limit his players to character concepts that would be likely/possible to happen in their scenario. If their campaign doesn't involve Eberron, then it makes sense (however, the DM could also refluff a race for a player that wants to play an exotic race, to better fit in).



2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?


I've never really been a fan of the first idea. The DM can suggest the use of Cleric, Crusader, or UA's Prestige Paladin, but I think it's ultimately up to the player to pick an allowed class, even if it's considered below-par or inflexible. The inverse might be more reasonable if the DM isn't allowing higher-powered classes or doesn't care for the specific system (spellcasting, initiating, psionics, etc.) that the class belongs to.



3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?


I think it's the DM's duty to convince a player to take Improved Toughness instead of Toughness :smallwink: The second makes sense for more martial or complex feats, such as metamagic (additional studying, perhaps) or tactical feats (specific training or observation), but I personally wouldn't require it for things like Leap Attack or Spell Focus or something.



4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?


I'm a bit biased on this one, because I don't consider classes to be in-game constructs - to me they're metagame objects used to describe a set of abilities and bonuses, and as such the build could represent what the player wishes for their character. Limiting it makes sense if in your game classes are real things, and people identify with each other through them (where multiclassing that much would scream "inability to commit").



On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?


I think this is mostly dependent on what they've done. If they've just helped the kingdom rid itself of a goblin menace, they might be important enough. However, if they're just everyday schmucks who arrested some bandits in a small town, the King might not care about them.



2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

These two are similar, in that the PCs are trying to do their own thing that clashes with what the DM reasonably expected them to. If everyone (including the DM) can still have fun with either the goblin-killing or the minotaur-pursuing, I think the PCs would be well within reasonableness to do so. A hook with regards to the lycanthrope, or perhaps a greater threat other than goblins, could work to get them back onto track without specifically railroading them; for example, they might run into the lycanthrope, who begs them to help find a cure for its curse so it doesn't go on murderous rampages anymore, or the goblins might answer to a higher power (a dragon, a higher-level giant, or perhaps demons/devils/yugoloths).

Also, trying to "teach the players a lesson" in-game is a terrific way to build passive-aggressiveness at the table. If you'd really like them to follow the story, but have no way to reasonably hook them onto it, it's best to talk to them about it outside the game - that way when you're in the game, there's no feelings of resentment for perceived aggressiveness.

[Kol Korran]

before i go into the specific questions- agreeing to play together is a sort of agreement between players and DM- each provides part of the gaming experience that makes the game. but the DM is also the arbiter of the rules, what can and can't be. that said, it is my opinion that the DM should seek to allow as much freedom as possible for the players as long as it doesn't hurt the fun of the group. (himself included). most things can be talked over, reviewed, and the DM and player can try and come to a solution. bone headed DMs and players should be excluded from play anyway.



On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based?
when a DM suggests a campaign, he should give some general fluff, some general rules mechanics and the like. i think that most players would try to build characters in those constraints and take it as a challenge (providing they like the campaign idea). odd ball characters can be incorporated as above, through discussion and so on (an odd ball played right adds a lot to a campaign), but i do think the DM has every right to disallow ideas that don't fit what he first published.



1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game? again, discussion and a work-it-out attitude might work wonders. perhaps the shifter is a slave? perhaps he is a mercenery? and so on. if the Dm goes to the trouble fitting the character into the game, the player should go to the same lengths.[/quote]



2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?
the DM may try to persuade the player to choose something else, but he cannot force him to. i'd suggest that if the player doesn't choose a crusader, that some extra features be workd in for the paladin to make him worthwhile. note: in almost any group there would be those who would pick better classes/ races/ feats and so on. you cannot make them all be equal in power and effectiveness. you can advise, but in the end the character IS the sole responsibility of the player, under the agreed upon rules.[/quote]



3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it? see above, the same as with the paladin. if the player doesn't want to listen, it's their own fault. you advise, you do not force.[/quote]


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available? personally i think the Dm should take it as a challenge to deal with this character. however, some DMs don't have the time to do so, which means they can't plan nearly well enough for the impact of such character, which would deter from the fun of the game. so yes, i think the DM has the right to do so. the player may well choose to seek another game, though i think this is a poor excuse to do so.


On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? i think that the DM needs to be preapred enough for the immediate surroundings and a bit beyond, and be ready to improvise. i find it that if the players completely surprise you, you can request a 10-15 minutes break to think and hastily prepare. i think there is a sort of a gentlemen agreement between players and DMs (at least my players) to not try to intentionally mess and wreck things just for the heck of it. so you caught the DM unprepared. but that means he can't deliver a worthy game experience.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another? i think it's in the DMs right, but should be from actual world reasons, not because he doesn't like to. also, it is my belief that nearly ANYTHING should be possible for a clever and ingenious group, but don't make it easy :smallwink:


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"? i think the DM has a few options. first he can tell them "they are no real threat" and let them hunt some goblins, maybe a little simple dungeon. of course, not really much of an XP. the second is to say the same thing, only to have some surprise happen that does challenge the players/ provide a hook/ makes something interesting happen. the third is to try and mix their desires with yours. "most goblins don't pose a threat. but the goblins of aikur peak are known to be much fiercer. aided by strange elemental and draconic magic, these secluded goblins have kept their secret away of the world." if they don't bite, go hunt goblins.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?i think you may warn them (in game rather than out of game) but then let them pursue their path, but have there be results and re precautions. NOT as punishment, just to show their actions have effect on the world, for good or ill.

those are my thoughts.

[Telonius]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

Yes, it's reasonable, but he should make it clear what sources are available before the game starts. He is within his rights to ban any creature, and not just because it's a Forgotten Realms game. This has mechanical effects as well as fluff effects (not available as a Shapechange option, for example).



2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Probably not reasonable, as stated. All 3.5 books are open, and the PHB is a 3.5 book. (So is ToB, for the inverse). If he wants to ban a class, say so at the outset. However, it might be okay to strongly suggest one or the other for other reasons. Party balance, presence of evil party members, player has a history of Lawful Stupid Paladin antics, etc.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

Yes. Toughness should be murdered in its sleep and replaced by Improved Toughness, and nobody should cooperate with the police investigation.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

If the DM has said that all sources are available, he should expect builds like that. If he wants to discourage it, he should state at the outset that he'll be enforcing multiclass XP penalties. Unless a player is abusing some mechanic or causing a real imbalance in play, he should be able to do that if he really wants.



On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Yes, though preferably more diplomatically put.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Within his rights to handwave it, but a little rude. If the players really want to go goblin hunting, let them; but they'll get no XP and maybe some of their competition will start making fun of them for being afraid of going after the real threats.

EDIT: Alternately, goblins can have class levels. Ramp up the difficulty to match the party.



3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? ...

No, not directly. He can suggest, and offer ominous warnings, and the players shouldn't be surprised to find their helpful NPC friend shredded to ribbons when they return. But if the PCs aren't taking the bait, there are other adventures to be had.


Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage?

No.


Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?


Okay to make it difficult, yes. Adventuring is a risky business, and the players (and characters) should realize that some things are more powerful than they are.

Okay to impart a lesson about going off-script? I don't accept the premise that there is a script. There are choices and consequences. The DM should prepare for some random searching, and be able to put some things together on the fly if he has to. If the players are taking things in a direction he's utterly unprepared-for? That's when you call a halt to the session and say you didn't expect that to happen, and you need some time to put something together on it.

[Rogue Shadows]

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts?

Entirely reasonable, though a DM should try to be flexible. Some character concepts just don't work with some campaigns, however. I would not allow a player to roll up, for example, a Luxan Jedi Guardian armed with lasers and levels in the Starfighter Ace prestige class, if the campaign was set to take place in Hyborea or the Forgotten Realms. Similarly, I wouldn't allow a wizard in a Spycraft or Star Wars game.

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

I'd say no. Especially in the Realms, I can easily see Shifters. They're "weretouched." Like planetouched, but with furries.

2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Absolutely not. If all 3.5 books are open, then all 3.5 books are open. The DM is free to "suggest" but not to "insist." If the DM didn't want paladins then he should have made that clear before saying that all 3.5 books are open.

Having said that, I think the DM should work with the player to beef up the paladin to party standards, if the rest of the party is playing significantly above the Paladin's tier. The Internet is a wonderful resource for such homebrews.

3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

As written, Improved Toughness as a prerequisite of Toughness anyway, so I don't know what the DM is getting at. If the DM wants to ditch Toughness and replace it with Improved Toughness entirely, then he probably should have made that clear from the start...but since it's strictly better than Toughness, I can't concieve of a player that would actually have a problem with the change, as long as the change is allowed to be retroactive for anyone else who has the Toughness feat.

As to the second point - no. Absolutely not. How do you "observe" toughness? In any event, levelling up is assumed to take place, usually, durring downtime between adventures and dungeon crawls, so durring the downtime, they had pleanty of chance, presumably, to learn how to be tough, at least by the rules-as-written. Unless the player is also required to "observe" someone gaining all those skill points, hit die, base attack bonus, class features, and whatnot, then this makes no sense. And doesn't make sense anyway.

4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

No. If the DM allows all the sources then the DM has allowed all the sources and has to deal with the consequences if a player wants to run something like that, just as the player must deal with the consequences of running a very...very strange character.

Besides. Personally I have always wanted to run a LG Barbarian 4/Bard 2/Cleric 1 of Pelor/Druid 1/Fighter 3/Monk 1/Paladin 1/Ranger 2/Rogue 3/Sorcerer 3/Wizard 1. As a joke. With classes gained in that order.

(character was, of course, assumed to be NG when taking initial Barbarian levels, then drifted to LG when he became a Monk).


On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory?

In theory? Absolute. In practice? This is railroading, and players fight against a railroad plot harder than they fight against any dragon. A DM should be infinitely flexible.

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Well, that depends. Are they important enough? Political standing has very little, if anyting, to do with character level. Also, what do they want to talk to the King about?

This question can't be answered without additional details.

2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Nope. If the PCs want to go goblin hunting, then they can go and hunt some goblins. Whether they find any goblins - or whether goblins are all they find - is a separate matter entirely.

Besides, goblins are as smart as humans and are fully capable of taking class levels. Goblins can be a threat at any level.

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first?

Nope, though the DM may inform some players that this does not seem in character for their characters, if indeed it isn't.

Certainly if they abandon the horrific murderer hunt, there will be consequences down the line, however. In-universe consequences, that is. I mean, there's a murderer on the loose. Can you imagine what Gotham would be like if Batman left it unprotected while the Joker was on the loose?

Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage?

Yes. Unless they want to sneak out of the city, anyway, I'd assume that the magistrate would be keeping an eye on them anyway. So not so much "require" as "as you are leaving the city, Lord Saltmarsh, the magistrate, approaches you at the city gate and asks: 'The Hell? Where are you going?'"

Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

No.

[bokodasu]

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King...

2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting...

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

Character-building - the DM should lay out the rules, and advise if desired. Laying out the rules, waiting for a character, and then saying "Well no not that" is kind of rude. (But there are still times when that would be acceptable; Person A's "low-op" is Person B's "munchkining", being clear from the start is best, but clearing up misunderstandings after the fact is still vital.)

1. If the DM didn't say the King was too important to see them, there'd be something wrong. Now, if the level 1's did something entirely by accident that was earth-shattering/world-shaping, the King should be finding them.

2. Of course they should be able to. Whether it's dealt with in a five-minute cutscene or by saying, "You stumble upon the warren of the 20th-level Goblin Mages, roll initiative" is up to the DM.

3. I am surprised at some people's answers here. Of course they can leave the investigation, the DM shouldn't be able to FORCE them to tell anyone what they've found, and making a ridiculous encounter to punish players for not doing exactly what you want is a terrible idea. On the other hand, the DM shouldn't protect them from the consequences of their actions - if they abandon this investigation, they should expect all sorts of awful things to happen, preferably to themselves and/or their loved ones. (And if they are lawful, they should definitely take the alignment hit, but that should go without saying.)

[Yukitsu]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

Players should always stick to the setting. If you can't do the theme with a different race, odds are you're donig it for power, not concept.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Suggestions to new players is always welcome, but you can't insist mechanics (unless they are illegal or somehow make the game too broken to play). As an aside, if you know what you're doing, a paladin can be more powerful than a crusader.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

Depends on why they took it, toughness being poor seems to be a balance to some other abilities that have it as a pre-req, and they may be going for one of those abilities. Other than that, I have no idea who would take toughness over the improved toughness, so this just seems odd to me. A DM should be smart enough to know that improved toughness isn't broken even if he's never seen it in play.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

No. Martial classes are part balanced around cherry picking abilities, forcing a straight class just makes everyone play druids.


On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Depends on why they want to talk to him, but most of the time this ends up coming across as some arbitrary stumbling block the DM throws in for no particularly useful reason to extend the length of the game without having to think of anything too strenuous.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

No, but he does maintain the right to not stat them, not roll for them and not run them. I'll generally just explain "OK, you kill a bunch of goblins, you get no EXP, no gear and 500 copper each".


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

PCs are free to do so, making the minotuar difficult has no correlation to the lycanthrope, so there will be no lesson for doing so, any time a DM gives a mission, failure should be an option.

[DiBastet]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

No. There's nothing completly FR about shifters. They smell much more to rashemi, however. I would allow genasi in eberron, too.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Yes. The dm should always point every choice, including pointing paladin instead of cleric if the player thought on a martial servant of the god of knights. The dm should also adress the problem of power of the various classes, and make a list of what classes he is going to allow.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

Yes. The DM should ban broken feats. Ubber or stupid.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Yes. As a DM I hate dips. And in my games you must finish your Prcs or abandon them (you can't enter any prc, ever, until you finish your prc). Most of them are VERY integrated into the setting.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

It depends on the campaign. King of the hills is different from king of france.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

In my campaigns, that I make a point in making it clear that the world doesn't level with players (so the CR 9 dark hills are cr 9 even if a party of level 2 or 19 enter it), I say no. In other less mature campaigns it could be a good tool to keep players on the plot.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

All of this is completly wrong. "The dm" shouldn't do any of these three questions. These things, if important, should happen in the world, in form of people telling them these things, not OOC by the dm.

[Boci]

Players should always stick to the setting. If you can't do the theme with a different race, odds are you're donig it for power, not concept.

1. If you're being a shifter for power, you are doing it wrong.

2. What race should the player choose to preserve their theme?

[Godskook]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

Yes, the DM has the choice to not allow non-campaign sources. This one is kinda obvious, imho.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

The DM can legitimately restrict tier level power, and also controls if a splat book is allowed into his game setting.

However, this is, in practice, a controversial subject, cause it often arises from either a misunderstanding of how powerful options are or one of the persons involved believing that 'original' fluff is binding to the point that a Crusader *CAN'T* be a Paladin, cause he's a Crusader.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

3a.Yes, provided that Improved Toughness fulfills pre-reqs that a PC would want Tougness for. Otherwise, if Toughness was intended as a pre-req, this is stealth nerfing, and that's rude(You should try to be honest about what you're nerfing and why)

3b.Not really, but probably only cause of the example used. It would be more appropriate if you had to study under another wizard in order to learn particular metamagics, for instance. I'd disagree with a DM doing this excessively, but in moderation, can make for some interesting plot points as PCs try to learn particularly powerful feats.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Depends on the game, the overall power level of the players involved, and such. The simple answer is 'yes', but the question isn't simple enough to get a simple answer.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

That's legitimate world-building, so yes, definitely.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Depends on everything about the setting, players and campaign, but if the DM feels the need to say that, its railroady but otherwise legit.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

Ok, here's a fun one.

1.OoC, the DM doesn't realliy have to do anything, but yes, if he's prepared for a final conflict with a Lycan, he can legitimately ask his players to follow the plot they've been pursuing to its own conclusion. Primarily, this depends on the DM's ability to make things up on the fly, cause completely derailing a plot that the PC's built the tracks for is frustrating as hell.

2.The DM doesn't need to 'punish' them for going 'off-script'. He just needs to progress the Lycan's plot-line appropriately to the new situation. That alone will 'punish' the players without inserting any amount of fiat into the situation.

3.The Minotaur is a CR 4, the Lycan could reasonably be much higher. PCs with tactical sense might think its more important to eliminate the lesser opponent first so that they'd more easily be able to handle the greater foe.

Regardless, this is something the PCs and DM should discuss, such that they're all together about how the game-world is getting viewed.

[Yukitsu]

1. If you're being a shifter for power, you are doing it wrong.

2. What race should the player choose to preserve their theme?

Depends on whether it's the multi form or just being an animal person, or both. I've played dopplegangers despite the crippling LA and HD and they were fun enough. A friend used a savage species lycan template progression and enjoyed that, and I've played a catfolk before as well.

The issue I have with individuals just carte blanche stealing characters from teh interwebs, is that they use them because they view them as powerful, not because they think it would be an interesting character. (even if they'd be wrong). In the exception case of them actually giving a toss about story and characterization, one would expect the player to actually try fitting into the setting, hence my skepticism regarding this particular example of the player's intent.

[Boci]

The issue I have with individuals just carte blanche stealing characters from teh interwebs, is that they use them because they view them as powerful, not because they think it would be an interesting character. (even if they'd be wrong). In the exception case of them actually giving a toss about story and characterization, one would expect the player to actually try fitting into the setting, hence my skepticism regarding this particular example of the player's intent.

And what does that have to do with a desire to play a shifter?

[Yukitsu]

And what does that have to do with a desire to play a shifter?

Means you don't care about the setting, what's in it or what's not. You just want a convenient cluster of abilities. And if it's not the latter, why not use any other race that fits the concept? Part man, part beast with shape changing is playable with other races. Unless they took shifter from Eberron and tacked it into a generic monster manual, but IIRC, I don't think they have.

[tyckspoon]

Means you don't care about the setting, what's in it or what's not. You just want a convenient cluster of abilities. And if it's not the latter, why not use any other race that fits the concept? Part man, part beast with shape changing is playable with other races. Unless they took shifter from Eberron and tacked it into a generic monster manual, but IIRC, I don't think they have.

Monster Manual 3, Shifters and Warforged. And I don't actually know of another race that will give you 'part beast shape changing' without also investing significant class levels in it.

[Autopsibiofeeder]

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

I would reckon that a bit narrow-minded. However, if the deal of the campaign was 'Let's do a FR campaign, because the setting is so cool', I can understand it.

2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

I'd say unreasonable. The player decides what he wants to play. I can imagine the DM advising that a different class may suit the needs better, but never insist.

3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

It would be reasonable for the DM to say: Toughness does not exist. You get Improved Toughness and it qualifies as Toughness for all intents and purposes. No to the observation thing.

4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

No. But it is OK for a DM to say, before character creation, in this campaign, build a character with max two classes and two prestige classes. Or: do what you will, but you have to take one prestige class 'all the way'. Before character creation.

On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Of course, if that is the case.

2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

That is a bit easy, but the players had better not expect of me that I am going to put a lot of DM-effort in this 'adventure'. Although, the golbins may be lvl 12 :smallwink:

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

Nah, their game, they decide. The only thing I tend to do every now and then is give them a hint when they are attempting something stupid.

[Rogue Shadows]

Monster Manual 3, Shifters and Warforged. And I don't actually know of another race that will give you 'part beast shape changing' without also investing significant class levels in it.

Hengeyokai, from Oriental Adventures. With Dragon 318's 3.5 update, they no longer have an LA. And I think they're even a race that exists in Kara-Tur, too!

(Having said that, remember I, personally, have no problem with shifters in the Realms).

[Yukitsu]

Monster Manual 3, Shifters and Warforged. And I don't actually know of another race that will give you 'part beast shape changing' without also investing significant class levels in it.

3 was a little wierd. Like, half the stuff in there had little notes about what setting they were viable or available in. I'll have to get back to my books to see if they mention anything about them in that respect.

That aside, if it's your concept, and you want to play that concept, then play it. Just don't ask for DM rulings in your favour to make it more powerful, or even necessarily viable. Suck up the level adjustment, and go with it.

[olthar]

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:
It is very reasonable. In fact, if all DMs started off with a blanket veto on prepared casters then I imagine the game would run better. Prepared casters have too much "I break your world no matter what you do" ability.
1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?
yes
2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?
If you are really stupid enough to open ALL 3.5 books then you deserve what you get. That being said, I would say he/she/it was a bad DM if they didn't suggest moving to a stronger character if everyone else was playing tier 1s or a weaker one if everyone is playing tier 5s
3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?
Yes. Nobody should ever take toughness.
4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?
I'd say this depends more on fluff. In my main game you need to train to go up a level. I imagine that if my character walked into some guild or something and was that build they'd look at me and say I don't belong there. Otherwise, as I said earlier, if you open all of 3.5 then you deserve what you get.
On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:
There is no end and should be no end to the DMs power here. If the PCs believe they can control it, then there is no game.
1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?
Perfect example to prove my above point. There are very few circumstances that a level 2 party should be allowed to see the king. Those few that do occur all qualify as fluffy.
2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?
2 and 3 are the same thing. If the adventure exists, then the PCs can play it. If it doesn't then they cannot. Just because there's no benefit for the players in hunting goblins doesn't mean it can't be a lot of fun to kill goblins in new and horrific ways. If there was a conversation between NPCs regarding a minotaur, then it's not going off-script. If you don't want the PCs to fight a minotaur, then don't let them overhear a conversation about a minotaur.

as said above

[Hanuman]

DM's Reasonable Limits?
How much control should a DM have? As much as the DM wants.

What is DnD? It's an adventure game played with friends, you have one DM who illustrates the world and results of the players actions and you have the players who create said actions.

If your story runs itself and the players are just reacting then your dm has done something wrong, if the dm is just reacting then that can be a great thing-- it means the players are doing most of the work, but realistically it should be a give and take, the DM should push the players on the swing until it goes half way then wait foe them to come back. This is how the game picks up speed.

Should a DM take control of a player? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Should a player be killed by the DM? Absolutely, kill the fack out of them, put a sense of fear into them. If a player sees falling and taking 3d6 about annoying as stubbing a toe then TBH you should lay down the hurt. Broken leg, broken rib, something. Be graphic, grusome and merciful while seeming cruel. That's how real adventures work and it feels more satisfying that way.


In terms of fairness, do whatever you think is right, and if its another campaign, voice your opinions without burning bridges, play your game out with dignity and decide if you enjoyed the experience enough to do it again.

[Pigkappa]

No. But it is OK for a DM to say, before character creation, in this campaign, build a character with max two classes and two prestige classes. Or: do what you will, but you have to take one prestige class 'all the way'. Before character creation.


Why does it have to be before character creation?

As a DM, I would simply say "please be reasonable" before character creation (and maybe give a few examples), and then handle everything case by case. This is the only way to keep balance, since there are so many ways to break the game that it's extremely difficult to fix them with pre-established rules.

[Urpriest]

In the case of the goblins, I think it's entirely appropriate for the DM to say that he'd rather the players stick to reasonably moral characters out of personal discomfort or other similar motivations, so chasing after innocent humanoids on a whim might not be appropriate.

[tyckspoon]

As a DM, I would simply say "please be reasonable" before character creation (and maybe give a few examples), and then handle everything case by case. This is the only way to keep balance, since there are so many ways to break the game that it's extremely difficult to fix them with pre-established rules.

Because multiple dips like that are generally perfectly fine from a balance perspective; they just get a knee-jerk 'wth is that??' reaction from people who are used to "Fighter 15/PRC 5" as a 'complicated' build. If you are DMing and a more class-heavy build offends your aesthetics enough that you're going to ban it or otherwise insist on nerfing the player- and it's just because of the number of different classes used, mind, you haven't even checked the actual capacity of the build to see what it does- then yes, the player absolutely should know about that before creation. Otherwise you're wasting both his time in doing the build and your time in arguing with him about it.

[Lord Vampyre]

In the end, it is the DMs job to set the stage. Unfortunately, not all character concepts will work in every campaign. If a DM doesn't feel something fits his campaign based on fluff then he is well within his rights to veto the concept.

Similarly, if something doesn't meet what he considers to be an appropriate power level, then he can veto it. Even if all 3.5 books are allowed, everything still has to pass his approval.

Interactions with the world are a little bit trickier. A DM should never tell his players how to play their characters, unless they are new to gaming. But even when the players are new to gaming, a DM should give guidance and not commandments. Everything should follow from normal consequences. However, players should be informed that their actions could have unintended consequences at the beginning of the campaign. For instance, the goblins may be a powerful dragons loyal subjects, who takes great offense to their massacre. Or a group of goblin heroes who are on par with the party rises to defend or avenge their homes. Not to mention, that if the players are playing Good or Neutral characters this could slide them towards the EVIL end of the spectrum.

Player's going against the stream of the story is generally a sign of a bigger issue. If there are any OOG issues, then they should be dealt with OOG. A DM is the ultimate authority for his campaign, but he needs to use that authority wisely. He should try to set some ground rules at the beginning of the campaign, to help alleviate future problems.

[flumphy]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?
Absolutely.



2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?
If his goal is to maintain party balance, then yes. If everyone else is plaing Batman or CoDzilla, then chances are the paladn isn't going to be very fun for that player, or anyone else. If it's for flavor....it depends. I would say no in this specific example, because the crusader and paladin have almost exactly the same fluff. But if it's a pretty dramatic refluff (psionics to magic, warlock to LG wizard) then yeah, I can understand how that could be immersion breaking.



3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?
For the first bit, yes, although I don't see why anyone would care as long as they still qualified for the PrC they were going for. Obviously houserules like that are something you should lay out beforehand, but nobody's perfect.

For the second bit, no, for the most part. After all, your characters aren't actually aware they have the feats. There are certain things with roleplay requirements that I can understand honoring, and I can understand why someone might not allow a druid from the northern tundra to turn into an animal native only to the southern deserts if he had never been there.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?
On the grounds of it being overpowered compared to the rest of the party, yes (provided it is actually overpowered compared to the rest of the low-op party and he's not just scared of all the numbers.) On the grounds that it has too many classes? No. The system was built to encourage multiclassing. Builds like that are just part of the package when you choose to play 3.5




1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?
Yes, unless at level 1 they had somehow managed to do something that was worth the attention of the king.



2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?
No. It's not like there aren't ways to raise the CR on low-level monsters. Although if this is out of the blue, the players shouldn't be expecting the quality of the encounters to be as high as if the DM had time to prepare.

Unless the party has no IC reason to do that and is purposefully trying to annoy the DM. (I've seen it happen, although not to me.) In which case, screw them.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

The DM shouldn't require the characters to make certain choices, nor should they be punished for not being able to read the DMs mind. However, it would be reasonable to have logical consequences for not catching the lycanthrope. Maybe the murders get worse. Maybe he finds out they were on his trail and goes after them.

[Yahzi]

explain the rationale of your viewpoint
All of your questions are answered by recognizing that the DM controls the world, not the players.

Can the DM state that races, classes, or feats don't exist in his world? Of course. He can also state that they are not open to players. After all, gods probably exist in his world, and nobody expects them to be playable.

Can the DM tell the players what their characters do? No, of course not. He can only impose the consequences of their actions on the world. They can ask to see the king, but if they're nobodies, then they won't get an audience - exactly as any NPC nobody wouldn't get an audience. They can stop investigating a series of murders, but that probably means the murders will continue (a good time for the Spiderman gambit!).

The DM controls the world; the players control their characters actions. The DM is free to say, "If your High Priest runs naked through the streets, the rest of the world will view you as insane and react accordingly." However, he cannot really stop the player from having his High Priest run naked through the streets, short of sending the city watch after him and having him arrested.

Also, the correct response to 14th levels killing goblins is to make them play it out - every single sword swing. Seriously, if they don't get bored after an hour of mindless, challengeless slaughter, there's something wrong with your players!

[WarKitty]

Why does it have to be before character creation?

As a DM, I would simply say "please be reasonable" before character creation (and maybe give a few examples), and then handle everything case by case. This is the only way to keep balance, since there are so many ways to break the game that it's extremely difficult to fix them with pre-established rules.

Because people have different standards of reasonable, sometimes even between different games. Say, I had a build that went something like druid 6 / master of many forms 1 / fist of the forest 1 / warshaper 5 / something else 7. In my last group, that would be considered a completely reasonable character. Other people would consider it far too cheesy. So you can't just say be reasonable and expect it to work.

Case by case is nice, as long as it doesn't result in major revisions after the character's already been built. If the DM tells me he wants low-op or limited prestige classes in advance, I'll build a character to match. If he just gives me a setting and I come up with the above, and then he says "that's not allowed," I'm going to be pretty ticked because I wasted my time building a character for his game and now I need to start from scratch.

Edit: In general, we also have a rule I've found pretty well that works for situations like "we're going to go kill the minotaur instead." PC's can do whatever they like. However, if they decide to go completely off the rails, the DM is free to declare a long break or even end the current session due to lack of materials. Coming up with the minotaur's lair is going to take some time, after all.

[Midnight_v]

All of your questions are answered by recognizing that the DM controls the world, not the players.
Is a pretty disrespectful point of veiw as stated and maybe need some clarification, otherwise it makes you sound really unpleasant.
Sounds like you might need to get a good definition on "collective storytelling" cause you and the 1 other person in the thread who says "Its the Dm's world" Seem to not take into account that, well there are other actual people sitting across from you when one says things like "It MY WORLD" they sound like a child.
To the point of the thread though.

Reasonable - rea·son·a·ble adjective /ˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/ 
1.(of a person) Having sound judgment; fair and sensible
- no reasonable person could have objected
2.Based on good sense
- it seems a reasonable enough request
- the guilt of a person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt

The Fair, and sensible... based on good sense. Varies from person to person so you might get some weird rationales when you go off that but I'll give it a swing.


On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:
I'm going to say. Its pretty unreasonable, because the main thing that a player controls is his character concept. Veto'ing things on fluff more justification, than vetoing based on mechanics. Though either way the thing is... it should be based on FAIRNESS for everbody, and not pettiness. Technically, wizards independently research spells letting someone use that to get higher level spells early is mechanically unfair. To other players unable to do this, as well as to the challenges reasonable expected to be faced.


1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?
Is it within his right? Yeah, one thing a dm CAN do is impose book limits. Is it reasonable? No. Not really. Especially when you start looking at 3.5 thay. Its is one of the most likely places in all of Aber-Toril to hear "A wizard did it". Now playing like that could mean many things for your char for the good or bad, but rationally, there is no reason why there couldn't be a shifter running around, Thay. Its easy for Dm's to abuse thier power though so, you might lots of times get responses like "Too anime" or in this case "too furry" ymmv.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?
I've had this happen to me exactly. I was amazed to find that some people play paladin, because roleplaying "Sticking to the code" is what they love. So the question between me and the player was "Why do you want to play a paladin, when there are better options?" So on the grounds of contributing more its unreasonable to say "No, PALADINS!" Likewise the inverse is true as well, but especially true when you start off with "All 3.5 sources allowed" having a dm say something like "That doesn't fit my idea of a holy warrior, so no" is pretty bad form when he's already stated all 3.5., caues at that point its more about the players idea of it.
The only grounds by which I ban pally's is if the other players have a problem with it, its democratic round here, and the pally sits in a funny spot where he by nature of his code, can bully other chars concepts out, and chars onto adventures. Btw. . . when I dealt with this, I ended up giving the pally bard casting progression, changing the spell list. We also snazzed up the smite a bit. Worked out fine.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it? Hmm, I assume the dm is doing that to help the player, so... I think it'd be best to Mod the way toughness works. 3 hp + 1 per hd. Is the first toughness, the subsequent ones he can either take improved toughness or 3hp toughness, but I'd be suspicious, and ask what kind of shennanigans was going on there. So yeah it reasonable, but it definitely needs to be discussed, before just saying "No, banned" the maturity would likely be appreciated.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?
Not at all. Thats something a Dm CAN'T do reasonably.
You can't say "Its not fair that your classes look to complicated" its non sensical. I'm pretty sure when someone asks that dwarf in game what they're occupation is the pc responds something like "I'm a fighter." or "I'm a Paladin" or even "I'm a Servant of Pelor"
Thats why it's unreasonable... its the oft trotted out "Miko" thing. Don't look so much at what that sheet says look at what a character is doing in game to define him. . . That might be a samurai too, for that matter. People doing that are doing it because the abilities they want their char to have are ACTUALLY spread out all over D&D like that to get to work right. Drizzt, in FRCS was the first thing that ping'd that for me, I was surprised to see, drizzt wasn't overwhelmingly a ranger.
Part 2 in a bit.

[LordBlades]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

Yes. It's usually advisable to try and help players realize their character concepts, but if item X from another campaign setting doesn't fit in your world, it's your right to say no.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Here it depends on the circumstances. Some games have a premise regarding power level, and the DM should veto any character that falls way outside it. If that particular game is something like 'optimized tier 1 and 2' and the rest of the party are playing as such, the DM should say no to the paladin, because it will only be dead weight. The opposite is also true, such as somebody trying to bring a Planar Shepherd into a sword&board fighter, TWF ranger, rogue group.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

See above question.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Nope. As long as you've allowed all the sources, disallowing a certain build that doesn't violate the premises of the game in any way (power level, alignment etc.) on the sole reason that 'you don't like it' is bad DMing IMHO.






1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?
Yes. NPCs should react realistically. If 2nd level people aren't important in your world, then the king has no reason to see them.


. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?
Nope. Let them do it, except the rewards will be insignificant for their level.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

As long as it's not a railroading campaign , and the PCs are acting within their personality I see no problem with changing their minds.

[Vladislav]

All of your questions are answered by recognizing that the DM controls the world, not the players.
Is a pretty disrespectful point of veiw as stated and maybe need some clarification, otherwise it makes you sound really unpleasant.
I think he meant "The DM controls the world; he doesn't control the players", while you understood it as "The DM controls the world; the players don't control the world".

[Amphetryon]

Lots of interesting thoughts so far. The views expressed have surprised me a bit in some cases, as they differ from previously offered advice and opinions. Surprising me is not a bad thing.


I think he meant "The DM controls the world; he doesn't control the players", while you understood it as "The DM controls the world; the players don't control the world".
I, for one, would like to know if there was a difference in Yahzi's mind between the first quote and the second quote, and which one was intended, so that Yahzi's intended meaning is clearer.

[Username_too_lo]

I'm not a huge fan of 'dipping' without a good character reason. If people want to play that game, then instead of saying "Roll up a level 5 character" I'd say "Roll up a character with 5000 xp".


If a multiclass character's classes are not nearly the same level, then he suffers a multiclass penalty of -20% XP for each class that is not within 1 level of his most experienced class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class's level too high.

And then there's stuff about racial favoured classes. . .

Am I in the minority for actually playing this rule or, because it doesn't appear in the SRD, are people just not aware of it?

[Yukitsu]

I'm not a huge fan of 'dipping' without a good character reason. If people want to play that game, then instead of saying "Roll up a level 5 character" I'd say "Roll up a character with 5000 xp".



And then there's stuff about racial favoured classes. . .

Am I in the minority for actually playing this rule or, because it doesn't appear in the SRD, are people just not aware of it?

Most people I know don't run it because it punishes melee type characters who rely on cherry picking class abilities. It's in all honesty, a rather unecessary rule.

[Boci]

And then there's stuff about racial favoured classes. . .

Am I in the minority for actually playing this rule or, because it doesn't appear in the SRD, are people just not aware of it?

Most people don't like it because it makes no sense. An elf barbarian 2 / fighter 4 takes multiclassing penalties, but a Elf ranger 2 / Paladin 3 / Cleric 2 / Rogue 3 doesn't.

[Username_too_lo]

4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Forgot to mention, I'd make him show the order he was taking the classes as well.

Let's see; you've got a level 20 character, that's 190,000 xp.

Let's assume - to be nice - that he buys them fairly evenly spread. Caveat: if it doesn't have Complete in it, I probably don't have the sourcebook - I don't know if any of these PRCs are favoured for dwarves.

DB: 1 / R: 2 / WB: 2 / DW: 2 / BS: 2 / DS: 2 / SS: 2 - Level 13 - 78K

Then he starts to pull away:

Lv 14: R-> 3 : DB 1 (-20%) needs 13K, gets 10.4K, 2.6K needed.
Lv 15 WB->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 14K, gets 11.2K, 2.8K needed
Lv 16 BS ->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 15k, gets 12K, 3K needed
Lv 17 DS ->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 16K, gets 12.8K, 3.2K needed
Lv 18 SS ->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 17K, gets 13.6K, 3.4K needed
Lv 19 WB->4: DB 1 (-20%), DW 2 (-20%) needs 18K, gets 10.8K, 7.2K needed
Lv 20 DS->4: DB 1 (-20%), DW 2 (-20%) needs 19K, gets 11.4K, 7.6K needed

*Phew* So, at the end of that haul, our Dwarf is the best part of 30K in the hole, compared to his compatriots, which means that whilst they're running around with level 20 characters, he should be limping back at character level 18 at the start of play. Of course, because he earns more from his encounters than they do due to his lesser character level, this should even itself out in due course, but it's still a pause for thought.

[Boci]

Forgot to mention, I'd make him show the order he was taking the classes as well.

Let's see; you've got a level 20 character, that's 190,000 xp.

Let's assume - to be nice - that he buys them fairly evenly spread. Caveat: if it doesn't have Complete in it, I probably don't have the sourcebook - I don't know if any of these PRCs are favoured for dwarves.

DB: 1 / R: 2 / WB: 2 / DW: 2 / BS: 2 / DS: 2 / SS: 2 - Level 13 - 78K

Then he starts to pull away:

Lv 14: R-> 3 : DB 1 (-20%) needs 13K, gets 10.4K, 2.6K needed.
Lv 15 WB->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 14K, gets 11.2K, 2.8K needed
Lv 16 BS ->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 15k, gets 12K, 3K needed
Lv 17 DS ->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 16K, gets 12.8K, 3.2K needed
Lv 18 SS ->3: DB 1 (-20%) needs 17K, gets 13.6K, 3.4K needed
Lv 19 WB->4: DB 1 (-20%), DW 2 (-20%) needs 18K, gets 10.8K, 7.2K needed
Lv 20 DS->4: DB 1 (-20%), DW 2 (-20%) needs 19K, gets 11.4K, 7.6K needed

*Phew* So, at the end of that haul, our Dwarf is the best part of 30K in the hole, compared to his compatriots, which means that whilst they're running around with level 20 characters, he should be limping back at character level 18 at the start of play. Of course, because he earns more from his encounters than they do due to his lesser character level, this should even itself out in due course, but it's still a pause for thought.

As I previously said to another poster, PrC do not count towards multiclassing penalties. If he adds 2 barbarian levels this character will not be taking any penalties to XP at all.

[Username_too_lo]

As I previously said, PrC do not count towards multiclassing.

Ah, touche - always missed that rule. What a waste of maths.

[flumphy]

I'm not a huge fan of 'dipping' without a good character reason. If people want to play that game, then instead of saying "Roll up a level 5 character" I'd say "Roll up a character with 5000 xp".



And then there's stuff about racial favoured classes. . .

Am I in the minority for actually playing this rule or, because it doesn't appear in the SRD, are people just not aware of it?

I'm aware of it. I run it (mainly to encourage human characters.) But remember that PrCs don't count toward the total. By RAW you can dip in PrCs to your heart's content, and far be it from me to stop you. Some concepts, like gishes, are hard to pull off without doing so.

[Amphetryon]

As I previously said to another poster, PrC do not count towards multiclassing penalties. If he adds 2 barbarian levels this character will not be taking any penalties to XP at all.
Not to mention that with only one or two levels that (assuming RAW) are causing an XP penalty (swap Warblade 4 for Barbarian 2 and XP penalties disappear, depending on order), a PC could end up easily making up the difference if XP is given per encounter. Even if it's not, the difference may well be unnoticeable at most points in the campaign. For example, "400 XP into 8th level" doesn't play any differently than "1000 XP from 9th level".

Discussing the XP penalties in the example character or the specifics of the FR kingdom as Thay in the reasoning presented is interesting, but I can't help but feel it sort of misses the forest for the trees in the examples provided.

[Gnaeus]

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

My response to this would be to say something like...

Hey guys, thats fine. You can do what your characters want to do. For tonights game, I prepared this thing over here. I haven't statted out everything on the coast yet. If you want to do that, it will be in next week's game, and tonight we can play a board game. If you want to play D&D, your choices are to generally interact with what I have prepared, or to give me notice a couple of days before game so that I can be ready for wild tangent #3.

[Boci]

My response to this would be to say something like...

Hey guys, thats fine. You can do what your characters want to do. For tonights game, I prepared this thing over here. I haven't statted out everything on the coast yet. If you want to do that, it will be in next week's game, and tonight we can play a board game. If you want to play D&D, your choices are to generally interact with what I have prepared, or to give me notice a couple of days before game so that I can be ready for wild tangent #3.

I wouldn't. Unless its well nkown that the DM sucks at improvising, players will hear "If you don't follow my railroad I am not going to let you play".

[Gnaeus]

I wouldn't. Unless its well nkown that the DM sucks at improvising, players will hear "If you don't follow my railroad I am not going to let you play".

I don't think that is a railroad. You are saying that you are willing to work with whatever their characters want to do, but you want the time to make it work properly. If they know that you put work into your campaign, not giving you time to prepare is inconsiderate on their part.

Some DMs are better at improving than others. To be sure, it is a good skill for a DM to have, but I would rather have a good boardgame and a week to prepare than to be flipping monster manuals open to random pages trying to find an appropriate challenge for PCs. Among other things, in my games, if the dice say that PCs die, they die. If I am pulling stuff out of thin air, I am not going to be doing a good job trying to balance things with the party. I will probably mostly be looking at CR, which sucks as a predictor of combat success.

[Callista]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?Yes, but the class can also be re-flavored to fit into FR. If you don't want it in there for some other reason, then state that other reason.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?Yes, it's reasonable if your party power level is high, and a paladin wouldn't be able to contribute as much. But remember that there are ways to beef up the paladin (with multiclassing and PrCs and decent builds) that can bring him up to the level of more powerful classes. The Crusader and the Cleric could both fit the same character concepts as a Paladin, but if the player likes the paladin class specifically, remember that there are ways to make it work despite its generally lower power level.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?If the PC is at average party power level or above, don't bother; if the PC is below average, recommend Improved Toughness; but I wouldn't dictate choices like that to the players. Depending on the feat, and depending on how much training is required, you may or may not require someone to learn the feat from a PC or NPC, but Improved Toughness or Toughness are things that really aren't flashy enough to seem like you'd need extra training. A few hard weeks on the road would be enough to justify learning a feat like that.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?Yes, technically, but you really should've set a limit on the number of classes and PrCs a character could have. This way, it'll seem like you're picking on the player.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?Of course. The DM plays the King, and if the King doesn't want to see nobody mercenaries from nowhere, then the King doesn't want to see them.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?No; that's railroading. But you may warn them that they won't get any XP for it because there's no danger. If the goblins need to be taken care of, higher-level adventurers could hire lower-level troops to combat them while they take care of the more challenging enemies themselves.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?No, it's not reasonable. This is railroading. If the PCs want to go slay the minotaur, then they can do that. You should remind them that the lycanthrope situation will change while they are gone, though--so they'll come back to find more murders and perhaps a few more lycanthropes having been infected. Maybe they'll even come back to a lynch mob that thinks they are the lycanthropes, seeing as how they left town so quickly. This is one of the more fun parts of DMing--you get to see what the PCs do and roll with it.

It is your prerogative to ask for a half-hour break to prepare for anything the PCs do that you didn't anticipate. Just tell them frankly, "Okay, I didn't prepare for this; so let's eat some pizza and give me some time to stat up some enemies."

[Boci]

I don't think that is a railroad. You are saying that you are willing to work with whatever their characters want to do, but you want the time to make it work properly. If they know that you put work into your campaign, not giving you time to prepare is inconsiderate on their part.

Unless the DM sucks at improvising, for a non-kez plot quest like minataur hunting I am sure the PCs would rather see what the Dm can come up with on short notice rather than wait a week.

[Gnaeus]

Unless the DM sucks at improvising, for a non-kez plot quest like minataur hunting I am sure the PCs would rather see what the Dm can come up with on short notice rather than wait a week.

If they insisted, I would run something, but if they TPKed I would tell them it was on their shoulders for not giving me time to plot my encounters ahead of time. And I would feel that it was very inconsiderate on their part, so they would probably not do well.

[Boci]

If they insisted, I would run something, but if they TPKed I would tell them it was on their shoulders for not giving me time to plot my encounters ahead of time.

Again, regardless of your intentions, this is going to come off as passive aggresive. Take a minataur and add some levels or templates. Even if you are just taking 10 minutes there should be no danger of a TPK just because you didn't have a weak to prepare.


And I would feel that it was very inconsiderate on their part, so they would probably not do well.

Why is it inconsiderate to expect the DM to be able to improvise a side quest? The vast majority of DMs should find this easy.

I can understand if a DM thinks its inconsiderate for the players to abandon their current quest, just taking a plot hook a week early sounds like part of a DM's job.

[Aharon]

Short on time, but since you want opinions, short answers without lots of reasons behind them should suffice (hopefully *grins*)

Character creation
1. No, can be refluffed.
2.
a. (no pallys in my campaign) No, but if the player complains afterwards about not being effective, tough luck.
b. (no crusaders in my campaign) Not on conceptual grounds, but if ToB isn't used in the group, time constraints ("I don't want to learn the material") would be an acceptable reason IMO.
3.
a. see 2a.
b. sure, it's an option proposed in the DMG, and the DM can use it if he wants to. It's a bit mean, though.
4.
Yes, if the build does something extraordinarily complicated. I have no idea just seeing the listed classes what this melee guy is good at. If it takes a long time to explain, I would disallow it. If it's just neccessary to get good in a certain area of expertise, I would be ok with it.

Interaction
1. Yes, the King/his advisors make the decision, not the characters.
2. No, the characters make the decision, not the goblins. If none of the goblins are leveled, it will probably bore the PCs after a few sessions anyway.
3.
a) (Insist on Investigation) No, but the players should accept that the session might end early because of their decision, if the DM hasn't prepared anything about the minotaur.
b) (Insist on reporting the decision) No, but of course there would be consequences. If they made a contract and perhaps even received part of the payment upfront, they shouldn't be surprised if the Magistrate sends law enforcement or even bounty hunters after them.
c) (difficult fight against minotaur) I would handle it as described in 3.b. The Minotaur should be about as big a problem as the conversation between the NPCs made him out to be.

[Gnaeus]

Again, regardless of your intentions, this is going to come off as passive aggresive. Take a minataur and add some levels or templates. Even if you are just taking 10 minutes there should be no danger of a TPK just because you didn't have a weak to prepare.

At that point, it wouldn't be passive aggressive, it would just be aggressive, because I would be angry and they would know it. I would not be giving them easier encounters based on that behavior, and I would have less time to be able to evaluate encounter strength properly. If I am throwing CR+3 or 4 encounters at them (as I regularly do) and I am pulling monsters at random out of a book or adding templates on the fly, the chances of an unbalanced encounter will certainly go up dramatically.




Why is it inconsiderate to expect the DM to be able to improvise a side quest? The vast majority of DMs should find this easy.

Because the DM puts work into his campaign for it to be fun for everyone. If they want a side quest, I will happily run any side quest they want. Given 3-4 days notice. On the other hand, if I tell players, "I don't have that prepared and am not ready to run it tonight" I expect them to be respectful of the work I have put into the game. If they say, "no, we want to do it tonight and we don't care what you have been working on, and we aren't willing to give you the OOC time to do it right!" that is completely disrespectful.

[Boci]

At that point, it wouldn't be passive aggressive, it would just be aggressive, because I would be angry and they would know it. I would not be giving them easier encounters based on that behavior, and I would have less time to be able to evaluate encounter strength properly. If I am throwing CR+3 or 4 encounters at them (as I regularly do) and I am pulling monsters at random out of a book or adding templates on the fly, the chances of an unbalanced encounter will certainly go up dramatically.

Then don't let them go after the minataur. Don't say "You can, but it means skipping a session". Don't say "You can, but then don't blame me if you die", just say "I would really prefer it if you saw this current job through". If they repeatedly insist, fine, go ahead with your origional plans.


Because the DM puts work into his campaign for it to be fun for everyone.

People generally think an average side quest is better than a good side quest they have to wait a week for.


If they want a side quest, I will happily run any side quest they want. Given 3-4 days notice. On the other hand, if I tell players, "I don't have that prepared and am not ready to run it tonight" I expect them to be respectful of the work I have put into the game. If they say, "no, we want to do it tonight and we don't care what you have been working on, and we aren't willing to give you the OOC time to do it right!" that is completely disrespectful.

So what do you do when the PCs do something unexpected? End the game session pre-maturely?

Maybe I am just a hire being, but I can improvise fairly well as a DM, and unless they specifically tell me otherwise, I will assume other DMs can as well.

[Gnaeus]

Then don't let them go after the minataur. Don't say "You can, but it means skipping a session". Don't say "You can, but then don't blame me if you die", just say "I would really prefer it if you saw this current job through". If they repeatedly insist, fine, go ahead with your origional plans.

If I said that, I would be lying. I really am perfectly ok with players doing anything they want. It is their characters and I am not going to make them do anything that isn't IC. But if it means the entire campaign taking a sharp turn to the right, I will request time to adjust and plan.


People generally think an average side quest is better than a good side quest they have to wait a week for.

1. I'm not sure I do as a player.
2. Everyone means everyone. I don't enjoy wild improv as a DM. At the point where players tell me to throw my notes away and do something completely different with 0 notice, I have just stopped having fun.



So what do you do when the PCs do something unexpected? End the game session pre-maturely?

I have a rough idea of everything they are likely to be fighting. As for something unexpected, that is too broad a question to answer. If it is something that will get them killed, they die. If it is something that will greatly advantage them (like they find a sneaky way to kill my boss without fighting it or to steal the treasure) good for them. If someone suddenly says, "Hey, lets plane shift out of Thay and go adventure in Mechanus" then yes, I end session for radical campaign rewrite.


Maybe I am just a hire being, but I can improvise fairly well as a DM, and unless they specifically tell me otherwise, I will assume other DMs can as well.

I can't. I don't enjoy it, and have had enough problems with it that I avoid with possible. My preferred DMing style is to take a pre-written adventure and rewrite it thematically while stealing its maps and any ideas or encounters I really like. Especially in 3.5, I have discovered that my eyeball estimates of appropriate encounters usually need to be reviewed after a good nights sleep.

Is a hire being kind of like a mercenary?

[Jair Barik]

Generally speaking the GM should certainly have some degree of a say in what is allowed as they have to put much more work into the game. In the case of the first question for example I'd say that is perfectly reasonable. If for example the group has agreed to play a game set in the forgotten realms and the GM has gone out and read up all about the setting in addition to running and writing up the adventure vetoes for various reasons are very acceptable.
Examples using the forgotten realms example.
-Player wishing to play a warforged artificer 'technomancer' for obvious fluff/theme reasons.
-One player wishes to play a drow even though the adventure is the players fending off the underdark from waterdeep. Perfectly reasonable to veto such a thing, especially is the players hasn't actually written any background to explain it.

[Boci]

1. I'm not sure I do as a player.

Really? You'd wait a week for a side quest?


If someone suddenly says, "Hey, lets plane shift out of Thay and go adventure in Mechanus" then yes, I end session for radical campaign rewrite.

If you had an NPC told them of strange events occuring on Mechanus then you have only yourself to blame.


I can't.

In which case, as I previous noted twice, its more understandable.


Is a hire being kind of like a mercenary?

No, just one of the many ways people with learning difficulties can write higher.

[Pigkappa]

Case by case is nice, as long as it doesn't result in major revisions after the character's already been built. If the DM tells me he wants low-op or limited prestige classes in advance, I'll build a character to match.

This is as it should work in 2011:

- I tell you to be reasonable and give you some basic examples (e.g. yes/no Daring Outlaw, e.g. yes/no DMM).
- Since the internet exists, you talk to the other characters to make sure you aren't building a Druid with greenbound summoning while someone else is building a commoner.
- Since the internet exists, you ask me "is this ok? is that ok?" every now and then.

Some people don't do this and get frustrated when their PCs gets banned, but I think this is mainly their fault. That happened often when I was the DM in my group; I'm not currently the DM and it's still happening. There are some guys who come every time with their 2 or 3 new characters each and try to get them allowed, and they are full of obscure features from obscure books (sometimes not even official ones), even if they are clearly overpowered and often misinterpreted (e.g. a feat which makes you automatically confirm your crits; a feat giving you +4 to Reflexes (turned out to be an Epic feat when I looked for it); a weapon enchantment which gives a negative level to the victim whenever you hit (btw, does this really exist somewhere?)).

It's much easier to say "core and complete only", but that would cut out some interesting choices from the other books, and "core and complete" are themselves full of things which require to be banned. The only way is to do this case by case, and the players just shouldn't show up without having spoken to the DM about their characters.

[Gnaeus]

If you had an NPC told them of strange events occuring on Mechanus then you have only yourself to blame.


Maybe, maybe not. It might have been something foreshadowing a later campaign event that you did not expect PCs to access for several levels. If I am running Scourge of the Slavelords and a party gets a whiff of Drow involvement, skips the next 7 levels of adventurers and charges straight into the underdark, the campaign will end really badly.

[Boci]

Maybe, maybe not. It might have been something foreshadowing a later campaign event that you did not expect PCs to access for several levels.

Nope, still your fault. As a DM you need to prepare for things like this, especially if the PCs have plane shift.

[tyckspoon]

a weapon enchantment which gives a negative level to the victim whenever you hit (btw, does this really exist somewhere?)).


Yes. There's the Lifedrinker in core- 2 negative levels/hit, fairly expensive, inflicts a negative level on susceptible wielders as well. You see that one somewhat regularly on Necropolitan and Warforged characters. This is the only one I know that's negative levels on each and every hit.

Then there's a couple of enhancements in the MIC that will inflict negative levels in more limited conditions; Enervating does it on crit, and Stygian is on command but only 3/day.

[nyarlathotep]

3 was a little wierd. Like, half the stuff in there had little notes about what setting they were viable or available in. I'll have to get back to my books to see if they mention anything about them in that respect.

That aside, if it's your concept, and you want to play that concept, then play it. Just don't ask for DM rulings in your favour to make it more powerful, or even necessarily viable. Suck up the level adjustment, and go with it.

MM3 specifically notes that shifters exist in Forgotten Realms and where they do. So would you be okay with all dwarves being forced to be midgard dwarves with severe LA, or really considering there is no shifter but with LA race forcing all dwarf concepts to instead be played as pech (about the same different between pech and dwarves as there is between shifters and catfolk).

[Gnaeus]

Nope, still your fault. As a DM you need to prepare for things like this, especially if the PCs have plane shift.

*shrugs*. You don't have to prepare for it in a survivable way. If PCs ignore what they are doing to go off on a tangent that is set for several levels above them, I can improvise a TPK with no difficulty. Some things in the world will kill (or worse) PCs who approach them recklessly.

Or they could stop trying to short circuit your game and just give you a little heads up as to what they are planning.

[Boci]

*shrugs*. You don't have to prepare for it in a survivable way.

Yes you do. If I hear a plot hook for another plane when plan traveling is an assumed ability, I will be annoyed if it leads to almost certain death.
If it proves too much, like we fight a creature and barely survive, only to find a scout party of 5 more who are busy building some earthern fortifications, then fair enough. The DM have conveyed to us in a non-lethal way that we are not ready. I'll return to the material plane


If PCs ignore what they are doing to go off on a tangent that is set for several levels above them,

Yes becauswe players know what level a challange is.


I can improvise a TPK with no difficulty.

They are one of the easier things to improvise.


Some things in the world will kill (or worse) PCs who approach them recklessly.

Who said they will do it recklessly?


Or they could stop trying to short circuit your game and just give you a little heads up as to what they are planning.

So grabbing a plot hook is short circuiting your game?

[big teej]

I'm rather on the sleepy side, so I won't hit the broader quetions your posing at the moment, I will however, comment on the examples you've given.




On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?



Not being super familiar with Faerun, and given that I use my own setting, unless both the player and myself had a difficult time justifying the character’s presence. I see little reason to disallow it.




2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?



If a DM tried to tell me how to build my guy, I’d likely tell him to stuff it. Advice is one thing, saying “you can’t pick that cause you’ll suck” is right out.*

*obviously this has exceptions, I won’t let my players play soulborns and phb monks for example. But I’ve taken steps to make better versions available.


I
3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?


If a player REALLY wanted to take toughness as written…. I’d let them.
Granted, I’ve since houseruled that toughness is + 3 hp per level retro-active and continuous.

I have yet to institute anything approaching “learning new features” I’ve considered it, but at this time, if the character levels, they get everything that level grants scott free.



4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

I’d likely tell them to step it down, because my games are VEEEEEERRRYYYYYYY LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW optimization.

In and of itself, I have no problem with that much multiclassing provided they can satisfy the prereqs of each change.
Given that I treat classes as in game constructs, that can be difficult for some switches.




1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?


Given how I look at fame to level ratios….
Outside of very special circumstances, or specific kingdom setups
The players at this level are nobodies, they can request all they like, the paperwork won’t even make it to the guy who preps the king’s schedule.

Now, obviously there are exceptions
Plot reasons
Or the way the kingdom is set up, if the ruler “holds court” every week where even the lowest street-urchin/begger/whatever can come plead his case…. That’s different, the players can take their number and stand in line just like everybody else.




2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?


This is actually a wonderful example.
If the players tell me (at level 14) “we wanna go goblin huntin”
I ask 1 single question, and let them have it.
“define ‘goblin hunting”
Does this mean “we wanna go obliterate the tribe that lives in those woods?
or something more on par with
“there is a goblin horde threatening the kingdom of thale…. We wish to destroy it.”

Either answer is fine, but I do require one.




3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

I feel I have a rather unique stance on ‘following the script’

My players have total free reign over what they wish to persue, with one …. “limitation” if they end one session telling me “we’re going to persue course of action x” I ask that they please stick to that and not have me show up with an adventure dealing with action X and they tell me, or decide in pregame discussion “actually, lets do action Y instead”

To continue with the example given…. It depends on party make up.
If the party is full of lawful characters (especially things like paladins or LG clerics and/or knights)
They would AT LEAST have to inform the magistrate, and it would count as a chaotic act

[Gnaeus]

Yes you do. If I hear a plot hook for another plane when plan traveling is an assumed ability, I will be annoyed if it leads to almost certain death.
If it proves too much, like we fight a creature and barely survive, only to find a scout party of 5 more who are busy building some earthern fortifications, then fair enough. The DM have conveyed to us in a non-lethal way that we are not ready. I'll return to the material plane

And that is probably what will happen if they give me time to prepare. If not, if I already have stats for what lives where they are going, that is what they will be fighting, level appropriate or not. If I don't, I will try to quickly come up with something appropriate. But I don't fudge dice and my monsters do not hold back for OOC reasons, so any "barely survive" fights could just as easily be a TPK, particularly if it wasn't well balanced to begin with.


So grabbing a plot hook is short circuiting your game?

If the DM has just told you, "Hey, I did not expect you to go there for several months real life time, please wait until next week to do that" and your response is "Heck no! I'm going anyway!!!" Then yes, that is short circuiting a game. And at that moment, we players have a pretty darn good idea that the challenge may not be level appropriate.

[Boci]

If the DM has just told you, "Hey, I did not expect you to go there for several months real life time, please wait until next week to do that"

Yes but up until now you never said you would caution them like this.

[Gnaeus]

Yes but up until now you never said you would caution them like this.

Not with those precise words. I have made it clear in every post that I was telling them that I was not prepared for that course of action, and wanted them to hold off for a week while I prepared. The several month part gets added when our hypothetical was clarified to describe something that was anticipated for much later in the campaign.

[Aquillion]

There's no easy answer to any of those questions.

As a general rule, a DM should try to figure out what sort of games the players want, and provide that as long as it's still fun for him. Talk to your players.

Now, you do have to keep certain rules in order for the setting to make sense, but one of the biggest traps a newbie DM can fall into is saying 'no' reflexively. I think it's generally better to follow the advice Jenna Moran gives in Nobilis -- you tend to get a better story and a more fun game if you try to avoid saying 'no' whenever possible. Instead, say one of the following things:

"Yes." Sometimes, when you stop and think about it, a weird request made by a PC might not be so unreasonable after all. If you don't have a specific reason to say no, say yes. Sometimes the things players request will lead in interesting stories. If the players want to take a cleared-out dungeon they just beat and turn it into a personal fortress, say, there's a ton of story potential right there, even if it sounds crazy at first glance.

"Yes, you can do that, but these are the costs..." This should be one of the biggest phrases in a DM's vocabulary, especially when PCs want something that it'd be broken to just give them. Take what the PCs want and turn it into a plot-hook for more adventures. Let them have it, but don't just give it to them, that's boring -- make it the core of the game itself. Why invent your own plot-hooks, after all, when players are outright telling you what they want? Players will love games that are based around obtaining the things that they're interested in. (The only catch is that you want to avoid a game that ends up totally based around one PC's desires to the exclusion of everyone else; but this can be solved by getting everyone involved in the conversation and seeing what they want in turn.)

"How are you going to do that?" If you don't see how the PCs can possibly achieve what they want, ask them how they intend to do it. Maybe they'll have good ideas! The PC who wants to meet the king could probably think of all sorts of crazy schemes to do so regardless of his unknown status, if you explain your objections and ask how he's going to get around them.

A PC who wants to meet the king despite being a relative nobody, for instance, is the kind of thing a DM should love. Obviously he can't waltz right in, but if you encourage him to follow that goal and do some necessary things to win an audience, it can lead to all sorts of perfect plot-hooks for whatever kind of adventure you have in mind. Eg. noooo, you can't just meet instantly with the king, but there's this minister who'll listen to you, and who promises to get you an audience if you'll do one small task for him...

Obviously there are some things you won't be able to accept, but before you say "no" outright, stop and think if there's a way you can turn your players' odd requests around and make them into a challenge or a hook for additional adventures.

The others are similar:

2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?Read up on Tucker's Kobolds. You can do all sorts of things to make Goblins challenging to 14th level characters -- deathtraps, class-leveled goblin heroes, goblins who turn out to be working for a powerful demon or dragon, etc.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first?Now, I could suggest that you laugh darkly and use the fact that the players are leaving this unresolved plot thread behind as story fodder in the future.

But there's something else going on here. Here's the thing: If the players are doing that, they might simply not be interested in the lycanthrope plotline. This is something that's extremely hard for a lot of DMs to come to terms with (especially if you put a lot of work into the story the PCs are rejecting), but in this case it might be better to let the PCs focus on what they want. Of course, if that doesn't seem to be the issue, you can still work the lycanthrope in later, turn him into a recurring villain, etc, especially if the PCs have done something to personally catch his attention.


Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage?I would warn them that the Magistrate might be offended if they don't at least report that they're dropping the job, but ultimately it's their choice (and leads to potentially interesting plot-threads later on if they come back or need the Magistrate's help.)


Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?No. This is important, so listen up: Do not do this. You know how I said above that DMs should avoid saying no? It'd still be better to say 'no' than to do this. Telling them flat-out "I'm not going to let you do that" is better than trying to use IC punishments for OOC objections.

There's all sorts of things wrong with it. The players might not understand why things are suddenly getting so tough -- they might think that you're just a bad DM for missing the appropriate challenge level on something they had no reason to expect would be so hard. Even if they catch on, it'll come across as passive-aggressive, and what do you do if they beat your monsters anyway? Keep making them harder until everyone dies? What's fun about that?

Ultimately the point of the game is for everyone to have fun, and 'everyone' includes the DM. So if, for whatever reason, you simply can't have fun if they go after the Minotaur and ignore the original plot, tell them that honestly. (I personally think it's better to try and be more flexible, but I understand what a pain it can be when players drop the plot you've put a lot of time and effort into.)

[Boci]

Not with those precise words. I have made it clear in every post that I was telling them that I was not prepared for that course of action, and wanted them to hold off for a week while I prepared.

For the minataur one yes, but not for the planar one. Or if you did then I missed it.

[Yukitsu]

MM3 specifically notes that shifters exist in Forgotten Realms and where they do. So would you be okay with all dwarves being forced to be midgard dwarves with severe LA, or really considering there is no shifter but with LA race forcing all dwarf concepts to instead be played as pech (about the same different between pech and dwarves as there is between shifters and catfolk).

I might be missing this, but the statement that they are in Faerun isn't in the monster stat profile on page 150-151 of MMIII under shifters, but given that they're there and it doesn't say they aren't, I'd probably consider it anyway. I would probably just gripe ineffectually that I dislike the dilution of the unique setting elements making them all greyhawk with different NPCs.

Yeah, I'd be fine with all dwarves being Midgard dwarves. Ineffectual, but if I want to play a dwarf, what do I care? A single weak element isn't going to make my build come crashing into the realm of unplayable. No real idea as to what the heck a pech is though.

I've run into DM's where all elves were some kind of Sidhe, with massive level adjustment. Wanted to play an elf, sucked it up. Wanted to play an immortal nightmare thingy like from the ring. Took vampire (easiest acquirable template for the coming back constantly thing), 8 level adjustment. As a full caster. Just took it.

[Boci]

I would probably just gripe ineffectually that I dislike the dilution of the unique setting elements making them all greyhawk with different NPCs.

I'd say insisting that FR with shifters isn't the same dilutes the setting more than allowing the race, especially if the background story can weave the race into FR's fluff.

[Yukitsu]

I'd say insisting that FR with shifters isn't the same dilutes the setting more than allowing the race, especially if the background story can weave the race into FR's fluff.

Can you give me a reason why you think that? When all the settings have the same races, same classes, same spells, same items, same effects, same Gods, the differences between playing in one setting compared to another tend to be fairly minor. They've never been terribly different, but still.

[Boci]

Can you give me a reason why you think that? When all the settings have the same races, same classes, same spells, same items, same effects, same Gods, the differences between playing in one setting compared to another tend to be fairly minor. They've never been terribly different, but still.

Recognition mainly. You can worship the Silver Flame in FR, but be prepared to see a lot of puzzled looks. Cast animate dread warrior in Eberron? Your spell book has suddenly become vary valuable, and not everyone will be willing to offer money for it.

[WarKitty]

I think the problem with a lot of what the DM "should" be prepared to do is the amount of actual time the DM has to devote to the game. Not every DM has a huge amount of time to devote - I ran a game where I had 3-4 hours prep time per session, as a new DM. Believe me I did not have time available to plan for every contingency, I had my hands full trying to just create decent encounters! The answer to "you should plan more" would have been "feel free to DM a game yourself, I've got a life!"

[Boci]

I think the problem with a lot of what the DM "should" be prepared to do is the amount of actual time the DM has to devote to the game.

By prepared I do not mean having 3 pages of notes for each hypothetical scenario. I mean recognize it as a possibility and has some idea of how it would be delt with. Like PCs taking the plot hooks you offer them before you intended them to.

[nyarlathotep]

I might be missing this, but the statement that they are in Faerun isn't in the monster stat profile on page 150-151 of MMIII under shifters, but given that they're there and it doesn't say they aren't, I'd probably consider it anyway. I would probably just gripe ineffectually that I dislike the dilution of the unique setting elements making them all greyhawk with different NPCs.

Yeah, I'd be fine with all dwarves being Midgard dwarves. Ineffectual, but if I want to play a dwarf, what do I care? A single weak element isn't going to make my build come crashing into the realm of unplayable. No real idea as to what the heck a pech is though.

My bad the shifters in forgotten realms material is from 4th edition. A pech is a creature originally from forgotten realms, an underground race of wrinkly old men with earth powers. They're like beardless pupiless magic dwarves with a huge level adjustment.

My point was that catfolk and lycanthropes are different enough than shifters that the refluffing required would mean you could just have shifters be refluffed to be in setting instead.

[Yukitsu]

My bad the shifters in forgotten realms material is from 4th edition. A pech is a creature originally from forgotten realms, an underground race of wrinkly old men with earth powers. They're like beardless pupiless magic dwarves with a huge level adjustment.

My point was that catfolk and lycanthropes are different enough than shifters that the refluffing required would mean you could just have shifters be refluffed to be in setting instead.

They are pretty much identical to a "lesser" version of a lycanthrope. That's pretty much what they're described as. Having to be "just a little bit" a lycanthrope to fit your concept doesn't really scream interesting characterization at me.

[WarKitty]

They are pretty much identical to a "lesser" version of a lycanthrope. That's pretty much what they're described as. Having to be "just a little bit" a lycanthrope to fit your concept doesn't really scream interesting characterization at me.

Most of the time I've seen them used more as a way to fit a lycanthropic character in without eating the painful LA and dealing with abilities that may not fit at low levels.

[Boci]

They are pretty much identical to a "lesser" version of a lycanthrope. That's pretty much what they're described as. Having to be "just a little bit" a lycanthrope to fit your concept doesn't really scream interesting characterization at me.

Luckily you don't have to play one.

[Starbuck_II]

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

If Lycanthopes don't exist sure. If they do you better have a good reason. Unless Lycanthropes are all 100% chaste even the evil ones.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Maybe he wants Cha to all saves. Crusaders don't get it to all saves.
You could ask that he not be pure Paladin though.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

Yes, Change all references to toughness to Improved Toughness for prc first, but yes.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

So does your game have exp penalties?
Warblade and Barb have 3 levels between them, that means penalty if you use those rules.

Ask him why that mixture.
I can see Deepwarden + Battlesmith+Deep Stone Sentinal as they are same theme. I don't see why Shadowstrker.


On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Not sure. Who is telling them this?


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Not really. You can ask them where are they going to ask for directions, but if goblins are in area, they can find them by 14th level.

If you wanted you could make the goblins have a link to a fight/conflict with something bigger.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first?
Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage?

I split this question because there are two points.
You can ask. I would just remind them that not reporting can have consquences (more murders) as the thing isn't caught yet.
But that matters only if the characters are good. Neutrals might not care.


Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

No. Why is finishing the investigation more important than the minotuar? The players apparently find it more fun.
Heck, you could make another link here if you really wanted them to finish it.

The Lycan? Were-Minotaur the whole time. :smalltongue:

[Yahzi]

Is a pretty disrespectful point of veiw as stated and maybe need some clarification, otherwise it makes you sound really unpleasant.
Not sure what you mean... the DM controls the world, the players control their characters. So whenever its a choice about how the world works or what an NPC does or what's for sale on the store shelf, it's the DM's job to make up an answer; whenever there's a choice about what the character says or feels or does, it's the player's job to make up an answer. Every question in the OP fell pretty neatly into a "this is the physics/social dynamics of the world" vs "this what my character wants to do."

[Yukitsu]

Most of the time I've seen them used more as a way to fit a lycanthropic character in without eating the painful LA and dealing with abilities that may not fit at low levels.

Yes, I'm generally of the opinion that if someone absolutely "has" to play a certain concept that in the setting is sub-optimal, they don't get a free ticket to a setting's stuff that is mechanically better from another setting.


Luckily you don't have to play one.

And since this is speaking from the DM point of view, they don't have to let the player play one either. What's in the setting is the DM's role, players shouldn't insist on new elements outside their own characters.

[Amphetryon]

<snip>


And since this is speaking from the DM point of view, they don't have to let the player play one either. What's in the setting is the DM's role, players shouldn't insist on new elements outside their own characters.
My emphasis. Is the race the player wants for a new character "outside their own characters"?

[Yukitsu]

My emphasis. Is the race the player wants for a new character "outside their own characters"?

The issue of whether or not they exist? Absolutely. That's saying that there are these things in the world, unless you want to be a special snow flake only one that no one can explain. I wouldn't, for example, say that I'm only making a decision about my own character if I were insisting on for example, a warforged in a D&D game set in Middle Earth.

[WarKitty]

Yes, I'm generally of the opinion that if someone absolutely "has" to play a certain concept that in the setting is sub-optimal, they don't get a free ticket to a setting's stuff that is mechanically better from another setting.

There's a difference between "sub-optimal" and "non-playable." Not to mention that line is going to vary between groups - and contrary to a lot of people's expressed opinion, I don't allow characters that are significantly worse than the optimization level into the party. As a player, I hate adventuring with them because they are a drain on the party's resources. As a DM, I hate having them because they result in a lot of wasted time trying to keep them up with everyone else in the plot. That and, at least in D&D, the system is designed so that a lot of fairly basic fantasy staple concepts just aren't playable. A lycanthrope simply isn't playable at all in standard D&D until at least level 3 for the weakest forms.

My solution here would be to find out exactly what the player is looking for from the race and see how to fit it into the setting. For example, if they're looking for a lycanthrope-type character, some type of monstrous progression might be in order where they grow into their full abilities over a few levels if you don't like shifters.

Obviously there's different limits. If someone wants to insert a warforged character into my high fantasy game because they want a robotic character, I'm going to say no because they don't fit into the fluff of the setting. If someone wants a shifter in a setting that already has lycanthropes? Sure, as long as you have a reasonable justification for it (maybe lycanthropy normally doesn't breed through but one parent was some sort of mage, for example).

[Lady Serpentine]

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based? Examples:

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

It depends. Did s/he say anything about allowed races?

2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

Not insist, but explaining why they might want to consider using one of those instead of, or in addition to, a Paladin is fine.

3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

No, he shouldn't just veto it, unless it's a standing rule that they knew about.

The second bit depends. Again, is it a standing rule, at least for that feat?

4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Eh. It depends.

On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Yes, unless they would be for some reason, or the king grants audiences to the public on certain days.

2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Not really; if they want to hunt goblins, they can. Although the goblins will probably flee into tiny warrens and pour flaming oil on them through ceiling holes, if they're that much stronger.

3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

I'd personally let them go, but have the town hire another group, give that group the notes and conclusions of the PCs, and then have the other group - at least a level higher than they are - kick them out of town because it killed more people while they gallivanted about killing minotaurs.

It teaches them that the world doesn't pause just because they go elsewhere.

[Amphetryon]

<snip>

My solution here would be to find out exactly what the player is looking for from the race and see how to fit it into the setting. For example, if they're looking for a lycanthrope-type character, some type of monstrous progression might be in order where they grow into their full abilities over a few levels if you don't like shifters.

<snip>Let's say, in the given example, the player is looking for a feral (small "f") rogue who lives by her wits in the big cities and can attack with multiple claws for decent SA damage when cornered.

[WarKitty]

Let's say, in the given example, the player is looking for a feral (small "f") rogue who lives by her wits in the big cities and can attack with multiple claws for decent SA damage when cornered.

In that case I would probably direct them to various other races or things like, say, the dragonborn draconic template that can achieve the same mechanical thing.

My general rules:

Fluff concepts are vetoed only if the fluff doesn't fit in the setting. Mechanical concepts are vetoed if not in line with the power level of the group. Fluff requirements are laid out at the beginning and any unusual character concepts should be submitted for approval. Actually, I generally require character concepts to be submitted in advance so I can work with the player to fit the character into the world. The better your justification for how your character came about, the more likely I am to allow it. If the player wants the fluff that goes with disallowed mechanics, they'll be directed to something else that fits the fluff.

[Boci]

And since this is speaking from the DM point of view, they don't have to let the player play one either.

No, but if it has little impact on the setting, why not?

[Crow]

Examples:

1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

Yes.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

No, the player should be allowed to play an "inferior" class if they so choose. The inverse is harder to justify though if it would overshadow the rest of the party.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

No, and usually no.


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Not unless they are treating PrC's as organizations.


On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory? Examples:

1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

Yes.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Nope, but no threat equals no xp.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

No on all counts.

[Yukitsu]

No, but if it has little impact on the setting, why not?

I'm usually a "big picture" sort of person. The social ramifications of an entirely new race usually implies, in my case, cross referencing every existing social structure to see where/how they would fit, what the common view of you is etc. Adding a new species is always a major impact on a setting, unless the DM is less politically inclined and lazy.

[Amphetryon]

Adding a new species is always a major impact on a setting, unless the DM is less politically inclined and lazy.
My emphasis. I would argue that "less politically inclined" need not be as closely correlated to "lazy" as your commentary seems to imply.

[Yukitsu]

My emphasis. I would argue that "less politically inclined" need not be as closely correlated to "lazy" as your commentary seems to imply.

Fine, "and or." Either tends to stretch my willing suspension of disbelief.

[Boci]

I'm usually a "big picture" sort of person. The social ramifications of an entirely new race usually implies, in my case, cross referencing every existing social structure to see where/how they would fit, what the common view of you is etc. Adding a new species is always a major impact on a setting, unless the DM is less politically inclined and lazy.

The race doesn!t have to be common though, and if its not in eberron they probably won!t be. There have already been a number of explanations such as diluted/enfeebled warewolf blood or the result of a magical experiment. The DM doesn!t have to give themselves massive amounts of extra work.

[Callista]

It does mean that if the race is obviously different, the PC will have people respond to them with anything from polite curiosity to witch-hunts. That can be an interesting thing for the party to deal with, and it increases the realism.

[molten_dragon]

On character creation and leveling: Ignoring issues where the ECL doesn't fit, how reasonable is it for a DM to veto specific Character concepts? Does the degree to which it's reasonable vary if the veto is fluff-based, rather than mechanics-based?

For the most part, I think a DM should try to let players play what they want to play. The exception to this is if doing so would lessen the enjoyment of the other players or the DM himself to a great degree. I feel it's less reasonable if the veto is fluff-based than if it's crunch-based. That's just my personal preference though.


1. The game is set in Thay. Is it reasonable for the DM to veto a player's request for a Razorclaw Shifter Rogue because it's a FR game?

I think it's fairly unreasonable personally. If the game was advertised up front as being roleplay heavy and the consistency of the setting was an issue that would upset the DM and/or other players, then I could possibly see not allowing it though.


2. All 3.5 books are open, and one player says he's thinking about making a Paladin. Is it reasonable for the DM to insist the player chooses a Crusader or Cleric instead, on the grounds that the PC could contribute more? Is the inverse reasonable, on the grounds that Crusaders don't fit the DM's concept of a holy warrior or other grounds?

For the most part no, I don't find either of those things acceptable. As with most things, there are exceptions though. If the PC's proposed character is too weak/too powerful and that will cause problems with the rest of the group, then it's justified. I've had to do this before. I was running a game, where it was agreed that the party would be high-powered. One of my players made a very mediocre and generic barbarian. Even that wouldn't have been too much of an issue as long as he didn't mind being outshined by the rest of the party, but he complained bitterly about it on a regular basis. I finally had to tell him that he had 3 choices. Remake his character into something more powerful that could keep up, continue playing his barbarian without whining about being underpowered, or leave the game.


3. In a game where all 3.5 books are available, should a DM reasonably be able to veto a just-leveled PC's choice to take Toughness and instead require the PC to use Improved Toughness? Would it be reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before she could take it?

No, I don't think that's reasonable. I think it's fine for the DM to explain that improved toughness is a much better feat, and why, but if the player is dead-set on taking toughness, let him. I don't consider it reasonable to require the PC to observe someone else with the feat before they could take it. It seems like a very pointless requirement to me. Either the DM will simply stick someone in that has the feat where it's convenient so the player can take it, in which case that requirement meant nothing, or the character has to derail the game to go hunt for someone who has that specific feat, which I feel is detrimental to the other players.

And for some of the feats it just makes no sense at all. Take improved sunder for example. If I am already able to try and attack someone's weapon in combat, why shouldn't I simply be able to refine the tactic on my own to become better at it? Why should I first need to meet someone who is better at it than me? (And how, as a character, would I determine if that person were better at it than me because of having the improved sunder feat of because they were higher level).


4. Is a DM within rights to require that a proposed PC build of Dwarven Barbarian 1/Ranger 3/Warblade 4/Deepwarden 2/Battlesmith 3/Deepstone Sentinel 4/Shadowstriker 3 be streamlined down to fewer classes when all the requisite sources are available?

Maybe. The more classes/prestige classes there are in a build, the higher the chance that there will be some sort of unintended consequences of class abilities adding together, and the more difficult it will be for the DM to determine whether that could happen. The DM should ideally try to understand the build and the classes involved and then make a decision about them, but sometimes it's difficult to do that (i.e. you don't own a sourcebook, or don't understand how something works)


On adventuring and interacting with the world:How much say in where the PCs go and with whom they interact should the DM have, in theory?

The overarching story of a campaign is something that the DM and players create together, so there should be a balance of letting the PCs do what they want when they want to do it, and the DM (through the world) imposing his will on the characters.

The other consideration is that the DM is just human, and can't prepare for every eventuality. When the PCs decide to do something totally off the wall that the DM never thought of, he's got to either be able to run with it by the seat of his pants or simply not allow it to happen.

Personally, I've made it known to my players up front that my quality of DMing is directly proportional to the amount which I'm able to prepare for things. I'm not very good at running stuff off the cuff, and because of it my PCs sometimes get railroaded towards whatever I had prepared for them that day. They were informed about this up front though, and it's never been a problem.


1. A group of 1st level characters, about to hit 2nd, return to the capitol and request an audience with the King. Is it okay for the DM to say "You're not important enough for the King to see you at this point," phrased that way or another?

I think that's perfectly acceptable. Even in a sandbox world where the DM allows the PCs to guide the path of the campaign totally, there are still logical restrictions on actions. The DM may allow you to murder someone in the middle of the town square at noon, but that doesn't mean he's not justified in having the city guard come after you. And a 2nd level character probably isn't important enough for the king to see them personally unless there's something odd going on. It correlates quite well with the real world too. After all, I can certainly attempt to contact President Obama and ask for a private meeting, but it doesn't mean I'll get one.


2. A group of 14th level characters decide they want to go goblin hunting. Is the DM within rights to say "Goblins pose no threat to you at this point, so you have to pick something else"?

Yes. The game is supposed to be fun for the DM as well. Throwing a half dozen goblins at a time at a group of PCs who will more than likely obliterate them before they even have a chance to act doesn't sound like much fun to me.


3. The PCs, at level 6, are investigating a series of horrific murders that appear to be the work of a lycanthrope. Before the final confrontation, the PCs decide - based on a conversation they overheard between NPCs - that they want to go slay the minotaur that's menacing the coast instead. Is it okay for the DM to insist they complete their investigation first? Can the DM reasonably require that they at least report their decision to the Magistrate that asked them to look into the lycanthrope's murderous rampage? Is it reasonable for the DM to make the journey to the minotaur, and the fight with it, so difficult as to impart a lesson about going off-script?

Not allowing them to go deal with the minotaur isn't the best way to deal with it, but as a last resort it could be justified. This kind of ties into what I was talking about earlier. If the DM doesn't have anything prepared at the moment for the PCs to go deal with the minotaur, and isn't good at DMing off the cuff, then I could see doing it. He should explain why he's doing it though. I don't think he should require that they report to the magistrate before they take off, but he's certainly justified in there being logical in-game consequence for not doing so. For example the magistrate may not be willing to work with the PCs again, they may get a bad reputation in the town, and if the magistrate is evil, he may falsify some charges and try to have the PCs arrested. And no, I don't believe it's ever reasonable for the DM to deal with out-of-game issues in the game. The issue of players going off-script and not going along with what the DM had planned for the day is an issue between the players and the DM, and dealt with as such. Dealing with it by punishing the characters in-game will only make things worse.

[Amphetryon]

"The dm" shouldn't do any of these three questions. These things, if important, should happen in the world, in form of people telling them these things, not OOC by the dm.This distinction came up on page 1 of this thread, and has been mentioned in some form or other a few times since.

I'm curious: What, functionally, is the difference between the DM using an NPC mouthpiece to express what a character should/should not do, and having the DM do it himself? In both cases, the DM is expressing his opinion on how the game world works and interacts with the characters. I can say from personal experience that using an NPC mouthpiece in this manner has often resulted in comments from the players along the lines of "THE DM HATH SPOKEN!" and then they retcon their actions. . . or don't. These reactions were not restricted to a particular gaming group, and I've seen them from both sides of the DM's screen.

So, what's the difference between having an NPC express what a PC should or shouldn't do, and having the DM do so OOC?

[Amphetryon]

Any further thoughts on any of the above?

[Callista]

I'm curious: What, functionally, is the difference between the DM using an NPC mouthpiece to express what a character should/should not do, and having the DM do it himself? In both cases, the DM is expressing his opinion on how the game world works and interacts with the characters. I can say from personal experience that using an NPC mouthpiece in this manner has often resulted in comments from the players along the lines of "THE DM HATH SPOKEN!" and then they retcon their actions. . . or don't. These reactions were not restricted to a particular gaming group, and I've seen them from both sides of the DM's screen.

So, what's the difference between having an NPC express what a PC should or shouldn't do, and having the DM do so OOC?When a DM speaks for an NPC, they are role-playing that NPC as a person with a unique personality and motivations. For example, if they were RPing the mayor of the town currently being attacked by lycanthropes, the DM would be thinking about how the mayor would want the party to stay because it's his town he cares about, not some minotaur somewhere else. But maybe a minotaur hunter the party meets at the tavern wants them to go for the minotaur so he can join up and get part of the reward. The DM doesn't directly determine what the PCs should do; he determines what his NPCs do, and the PCs react to that. Often times the NPCs will have differing opinions.

The big difference between being a DM and playing a single PC is that a DM has an entire world as "his character". No one NPC can really be his "mouthpiece" to begin with. The DM is just playing the world as it is, and thinking about the major motivations of the major characters in it, when he has them respond to the PCs.

That's one of the lovely things about tabletop RPGs as compared to CRPGs. If you're programming a CRPG, you can't really plan for everything the player might want to do, so you have to constantly have your NPCs give the player hints about where the interesting things to do are located. But if you're a DM, then you don't have to do that. Your campaign doesn't have to be pre-programmed and you don't have to lead the PCs around by having NPCs robotically tell them where the plot is. The plot is wherever the PCs are, simple as that. Of course there are lots of tricks you can use to make sure there's always something interesting for them to do, but just having an NPC puppet ordering them to go one way or another is a pretty boring way to go about it.

[Amphetryon]

The big difference between being a DM and playing a single PC is that a DM has an entire world as "his character". No one NPC can really be his "mouthpiece" to begin with. The DM is just playing the world as it is, and thinking about the major motivations of the major characters in it, when he has them respond to the PCs.
This appears, by my reading, to sidestep the reaction that I've often seen from players that, if an NPC mentions something happening in the campaign world, it must be because the DM is directing them toward that plot point. Regardless of internal consistency with the NPC speaking, players often behave as if every NPC is simply a Quest-Giver who informs them of their next task. They then go along with it, ignore it, or object to the "railroading" from the DM in this form. Given that reaction, how can a group differentiate between the "Quest-Giver" who speaks because the DM has an encounter prepared over yonder, and the NPC reacting from internal consistency of character, without the DM clarifying which is which out of game?